Follow-up from "Parser"
The following discussion from !21 (merged) should be addressed:
-
@gscherer started a discussion: I hadn't thought about that earlier, but now that I see the code I'm not fond of having this transformation at the parser level. I would rather make the language slightly more complex by having constructors take an optional parameter (so there is a declaration
| Foo
in addition to| Foo of <type>
, and we have anoption
for the parameter type in the declaration).I think that this could be left for a cleanup PR after this one, so I don't think you need to change anything for now.